274
PARTISAN REVIEW
development are nevertheless-however much we might wish it
otherwise---cut more deeply by the genes in certain directions than
in others....Deep history-by which I mean biological history–
makes us what we are, no less than culture.
Moderate as this statement sounds, it is anathema to those for whom
culture-because malleable and meliorable-must be all-in-all. The
Sociobiology Study Group, founded to combat Wilson et aI., and includ–
ing several Harvard professors, linked such research to Nazi ideology. At
the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in
1976,
a resolution
to
censure sociobiology-"book burning," Margaret
Mead protested-was defeated, but quite narrowly, Wilson notes in his
memoirs,
Naturalist.
Two years later at a meeting of the American Asso–
ciation for the Advancement of Science, members of something calling
itself the International Committee Against Racism picketed Wilson's
appearance-some of their placards bore swastikas-and then rushed
the speaker's platform and poured a pitcher of water over his head,
shouting "Wilson, you're all wet!" Lysenko meets the Three Stooges.
About a decade later, in
1986,
a group of forty or so academics meet–
ing under UNESCO auspices in Seville drafted an anti-sociobiological
manifesto that came
to
be called the "Seville Statement on Violence."
Drafters of the statement began pushing
to
have it declared "official
policy" by scientific associations: the American Anthropological Asso–
ciation and the American Psychological Association both adopted it; the
American Association for the Advancement of Science refused. The doc–
ument, as several of its critics have noted, is a perfect example of
Lysenkoism, political pronouncement replacing scientific inquiry. The
five propositions of the statement each begin with the formula: IT IS
SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT.. .followed by dogmatic and abso–
lutist assertions, thus attempting
to
establish by fiat the "truth" not only
of all past and current research into the causes and nature of violence
but all future research as well. Not only did the document reject the pos–
sibility that humans have any innate biological tendency toward aggres–
sion, it further accused those who suggested such a connection of having
provided justification for violence and war.
Some dissenting members of the Anthropological Association
rejected the idea that scientific issues could be settled by votes of the
memberships of professional organizations. One anthropologist, Walter
Zenner, expressed his distress that colleagues "act as if scholarly deci–
sions can be made by legislation and resolutions rather than through
research [and] open debate." Even more emphatic was Robin Fox, who,
